And self esteem should be divorced from either.
Same goes for boob size, ladies. :cool:

spode was talking about the horse.

Ah, but the lad is uncircumcised, and from the appearnce, 'twould appear he didn't fluff much, if at all.

Ohhhhh, Wilbur!

"thats not a carrot!"

Am I the only one to assume it's shopped?
The legs don't match the arms imo and despite Equus covering this topic, how likely is it a young actor would allow these publicity shots to circulate? In the play he is naked on stage for seconds, not a full frontal, stand still and show it off....

The only official shots I've seen have ended at the top of the pubic line. Even if full length shots were taken I'd expect him to wear a modety pouch.

Sorry to be a wet blanket and all that - seeing cock on WTF NSFW is appreciated regardless.... Disparity in nudity as previously mentioned ;)

i wasn't about to stare at it long enough to tell if it was shopped or not. i think i need to take the homophobe blasphemy challenge or something. i tell my self i'm not a homophobe, but i recoiled from that picture.

Well, now that you mention it, SG...I think you're right. The legs are far more muscular than the upper body, plus the resolution of the torso just isn't right in comparison with the hips to legs.

I was stoic and stared and stared, nay studied that photo, and I am sad to announce that I agree with Sundae. The legs are massive, warrior-like legs; like Russel Crowe in Gladiator...his powerful thighs, capable of vigorous thrusts, potent momentum, breathtaking propulsion and possibly even forceful torque...................

Look. I just don't think those are Harry's thighs and dong. I'd like to think that this unassuming lad is hung like that, as would be a happy surprise for anyone lucky enough to come across it, but I don't think it's his.

I must confess to only staring at the dong first time around, but now you, er, come ... to mention it, it looks 'shopped to me, too.

The picture could have been the original before they cropped it for the public. But cranking it up in Photoshop, I can make out the legs. His right leg (our left) ends before the edge of the frame... like it's jaggedly broken off. The bent leg shows the foot but no trace of the horse down there. He might be blocking the horses leg but that's a stretch.

I'm crushed that he would allow such a thing. Surely he's put a spell on the pictures so people couldn't do that with his permission.:dunce:

I'd agree it might be photoshopped, but not because of any disparity between upper/lower body.

My upper body is way less developed than my lower body. It's not uncommon, really--look at joggers, bikers, soccerers, etc. Bodybuilders will pump their upper body up to massive proportions, but more fitness-minded people will have more massive legs and moderately proportioned upper bodies.

Just an e.g., I can rep* 500 lb. squats and 1,200 lb. leg presses, but I can't rep more than 225 or so on a bench press.

* our colloq. defn. of rep is that it's an amount you can do several (2+) reps of on at least two sets.

My husband is built kind of that way too, with very strong, large legs. Personally, I like that in a guy much better than the out of proportion giant upper body and small legs look we see so often touted as the ideal.

It's a classical (pre-steroid-era) physique, reminiscent of Sandow (pictured below).
The arms and legs are properly proportioned. The leg in question looks bigger because it is foreshortened.

i hate to bring this up but...is it really going to affect your life that much if you never know what harry potters wand looks like?

oh and nice work grant, show off ;)